Parf Guide mark 2 issues and questions

I received my replacement Parf sticks from Axminster. The package arrived fairly beat up. In the original order, the kit arrived in a tube inside a box, and was well protected. This time, it was just the tube, with no box.

View attachment 1

The Parf sticks were bent.

View attachment 2

I was able to bend them back a bit, but they still didn't quite rest flat.

I'll call my first pair of Parf sticks A and B, and the second pair C and D. As I described earlier, the holes in A and B were slightly out of alignment. So were the holes in C and D. Luckily, the holes in A and C did line up, so I used that pair. (Of the six possible pairings, that was the only pair where the holes were in good alignment.)

Even though C was slightly bent, it didn't cause any problems with the hole layout.

This time, the hole layout went much more smoothly. In my previous attempt, I had some situations where I extended the top and bottom rows of 3mm holes to the right, but then could not get the Parf stick to line up with both the right-most top and bottom holes. This time, I didn't have that problem. There were a few situations where it was very tight and difficult to insert two distant pins through the Parf stick holes into the 3mm holes drilled in the MDF, but I found that I was able to push the pins sideways just a little, and since the MDF has a little give to it, this would slightly extend or shorten the distance between the pair of pins, allowing them to seat all the way in the Parf stick.

I found that inserting and removing the pins was in general very difficult because the fit in the holes was very tight. There's no way I could have inserted and removed them by hand without assistance. I ended up putting clamps on the pins (and leaving them on) so that there was a much larger handle to push, pull, and twist the pins. Here's a picture of the 20mm guide pinned to the worktop, where each pin is being held by a quick clamp.

View attachment 4

I added some holes that were offset by 48mm both horizontally and vertically, and I used the UJK chamfer cutter to chamfer the holes. Here is the end result. I think it turned out very nicely!

View attachment 3

One thing that I was curious about was how close to perpendicular the 20mm holes would be. I drilled the 3mm holes as close to perpendicular as I could by hand, and the same for the 20mm holes. The guides help immensely, but still, most of the holes were slightly out of perpendicular. Here is a typical one; some were slightly better, some were slightly worse. (For this photo, I positioned the square from the direction that had the most error.)

View attachment 5

I also noticed that holes on one side of the the worktop tended to tilt one way, and holes on the other side tended to tilt the other way, probably because I have a systematic bias when drilling the holes (say, angling to the right), and I stood on opposite sides of the table to drill holes that were on opposite sides.

This could be an issue when the dogs are used to position the guide rail. Obviously, the thicker the stock being cut, the higher up the guide rail will be, and so the greater the cut error. I suspect that the small amount of error won't cause any real problems. The error could be reduced by using dog holes that are as far apart as possible -- this will reduce the error angle.

I also noticed that if I placed three dogs in one row, then pushed a good straightedge up against them, in most cases I could rock the straightedge a little bit (with the middle dog acting as the pivot point) if it was on one side of the dogs, but not the other. This indicates that the holes are slightly non-colinear. Again, I suspect that the amount of error is small enough that it won't cause any problems in real-world usage.

View attachment 6

I don't have access to a Festool MFT table, so I don't know how my worktop compares in terms of accuracy. At any rate, I am looking forward to getting some good use out of it!
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0724.JPG
    IMG_0724.JPG
    1.9 MB · Views: 1,120
  • IMG_8669.JPG
    IMG_8669.JPG
    2.1 MB · Views: 1,423
  • workbench-1.jpg
    workbench-1.jpg
    186 KB · Views: 978
  • IMG_0190.JPG
    IMG_0190.JPG
    1.6 MB · Views: 1,245
  • IMG_1816.JPG
    IMG_1816.JPG
    1.1 MB · Views: 1,281
  • IMG_8572.JPG
    IMG_8572.JPG
    533.9 KB · Views: 1,937
I'd be wild if I got a package like that.
I'd say your problems are because your sticks are bent.  The tolerances are so tight any bend would affects how it works.  I have the mark 1 system from Lee Valley and bent one of the pins ever so slightly and it is tighter to insert, just by lifting up one end of the stick before removing the pin.  I've never had any problems with accuracy with the Mark 1 jig.  They whole key to the system is drilling the 3mm holes properly as they are the guide for the 20mm bit.  There are a few videos our there in which they are not using the guide dog when drilling the 3mm holes.  I think that is why they created the MarkII. To try and eliminate human error.
 
A few more follow-up notes on this:

I did the four-cut test on a 24"x24" piece of hardboard, and the error I found per cut was only 0.021 degrees, which is actually better than the 0.031 which Peter Parfitt in the video where he tested it. So I'm very pleased with the accuracy of the work top!

One thing worth mentioning is that the hardboard was only 3/32" thick; it's possible that the error will be larger with thicker stock due to holes being slightly off from being perfectly vertical (as I showed in an earlier photo), and the higher-positioned rail therefore being more offset.

I finished the table with three coats of water-based polyurethane. This had the result of making the surface a bit rougher and grippier. I think it's because the water raised the "grain" of the MDF. I'm glad this happened, because I have had some issues with narrow stock moving when it's being cut. I would actually like to make the surface even grippier than it is, but I'm not sure how to do that now.

cubevandude said:
I'd be wild if I got a package like that.
I'd say your problems are because your sticks are bent.  The tolerances are so tight any bend would affects how it works.

I actually found that the bent sticks (which were from the second shipment) didn't cause problems in accuracy. I made sure to push the bent part flat when I used it. The problem was that the holes were not spaced exactly the same in the first pair of Parf sticks. I haven't contacted Axminster about it yet because I've been very busy with other things. Hopefully they'll be able to provide some sort of remedy.
 
I have been in contact with Axminster about this and they believe that a batch of 5 pairs of rulers may be affected by a manufacturing error. They had already sold out of the Mark 2 system before this came to light. They are now waiting for some blanks to arrive in order to produce replacements and new stock.

Unfortunately the Christmas and New Year breaks, which were in two short periods for Axminster, have delayed he arrival of the blanks.

I am really sorry for the disruption and disappointment that this has caused for those affected. As soon as I get any more news I will let you know.

Peter
 
box185, good idea to measure the spacing between each adjacent pair of holes.

I just measured the spacing on my ruler A (as I mentioned previously, I labeled the two from my first shipment A and B, and the two from the second shipment C and D). My results, in mm:

89.91
90.07
89.90
90.06
89.93
90.07
89.95
90.07
89.92
90.10

I checked the other rulers as well, and found that they all had a similar alternating pattern. I will be contacting Axminster about this as well.

Although this didn't prevent me from making a work surface that gives me very accurate results with the 4-cut test, I do wonder if some of the tight spots (where I had to push the pins sideways a bit) were caused in part by this issue.
 
Hi [member=69430]wch[/member]

Can you provide a picture of the equipment and method that you are using to produce results to 2 decimal places of a mm please?

Peter
 
Peter Parfitt said:
Can you provide a picture of the equipment and method that you are using to produce results to 2 decimal places of a mm please?

I'm just using some cheap digital calipers. It reads to .01mm, but I don't know if it's really that accurate. I'm sure that, combined with my measurement method, the values I gave were not accurate to .01mm. It might be more like +/- .02 or .03mm, but I can't say for sure.

The way I measured was to put the jaws in the two holes, and while pushing the jaws together gently, and I wiggled the caliper until it settled to a minimum value.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_8134.JPG
    IMG_8134.JPG
    284.1 KB · Views: 1,096
wch said:
Peter Parfitt said:
Can you provide a picture of the equipment and method that you are using to produce results to 2 decimal places of a mm please?

I'm just using some cheap digital calipers. It reads to .01mm, but I don't know if it's really that accurate. I'm sure that, combined with my measurement method, the values I gave were not accurate to .01mm. It might be more like +/- .02 or .03mm, but I can't say for sure.

The way I measured was to put the jaws in the two holes, and while pushing the jaws together gently, and I wiggled the caliper until it settled to a minimum value.

Another way to measure for hole center spacing would be to put pins in the holes and measure to the outside of the dowels/pins, then subtract the diameter of one pin from the measurement.  It is likely that both the drilled holes and the ground pins/dowels are of high precision and the pin diameters are quite easy to measure.  I have found it more convenient and more repeatable to measure this way than trying to measure directly inside between two  holes.  Just a suggestion to consider.
 
Nobody is disputing that there has been a small number of rulers produced which were outside of tolerance but I must caution everyone about measuring techniques.

As a rule of thumb any digital device in a sensible budget range should be viewed as not accurate beyond +/- 5 of the of the final decimal point on the screen. Some can be better and the top of the range devices will be very accurate indeed.

When Axminster agreed to take on the various new "Parf" products I insisted that they had the measuring equipment necessary to do their QA. In order to measure the size and spacing of the holes on the rulers they have purchased a machine for that task alone. It cost over £25,000 and there are about another £10,000 of precision reference blocks, probes and so on to make the whole thing work. Also, it is used in a temperature controlled area and items introduced to that area have to be given time to adjust to that temperature.

So, digital kit in the sub £1,000 range should always be used with the final digit to the right of the decimal point as a rounding mechanism for the digit to the left. That means that 1.76 should be read as 1.8 and 0.7182 should be read as 0.718.

Peter
 
I own both the MK1 and MK2 versions of the Parf Guide System. I'm just wondering if what I have observed is acceptable. 

First I place a MK1 and MK2 stick, back to back ( one on top the other) and insert one of the new MK 2 pins through both sticks from the MK 2 side.  I insert the MK 2 pin until the MK 2 pin shoulder passes thru the MK 2 stick and rests on the back of the MK 1 stick.

[attachimg=1]
[attachimg=2]

The second image shows that when I go to the opposite end of the overlaid sticks, I am not able to fully insert a MK 2 pin through both sticks to the point the MK 2 pin shoulder passes thru through the MK 2 stick and touches the underlying MK 1 stick. 

If the MK 1 and MK 2 holes spacing were the same I would expect to be able to line up the pin on both ends at the same time.

I'm hoping what I've described is nothing to worry about.  I have communicated this with Axminster and their solution is for me to return the MK 2 System (using their pre paid label).

I'd really like to keep the MK 2 System. Maybe what I've described is not important  Or maybe I just need new MK 2 sticks which I'm not sure they offer.

Any feedback would be appreciated. I order frequently from Axminster and their shipping times and prices are not out of line. For me usually quicker than an East Coast US order.  I am in California
 

Attachments

  • 03  -  I and II Sticks overlaid with II 3mm pin unable to fully insert- .jpg
    03 - I and II Sticks overlaid with II 3mm pin unable to fully insert- .jpg
    365.7 KB · Views: 9,927
  • 03  -  I and II Sticks overlaid with II 3mm pin unable to fully insert- .jpg
    03 - I and II Sticks overlaid with II 3mm pin unable to fully insert- .jpg
    365.7 KB · Views: 9,705
I see I attached same image twice I will try again with first image
 

Attachments

  • 02 -  I and II Sticks overlaid with II 3mm pin fully inserted.jpg
    02 - I and II Sticks overlaid with II 3mm pin fully inserted.jpg
    334.7 KB · Views: 1,147
Anyone with rulers which are faulty should contact Axminster Customer Services. But do make a top with the system and check that it works as a very minor variation between a pair of rulers may not be an issue.

Always contact Axminster Customer Services first if you have any problems. They manufacture and distribute the kit and I am unable to help other than provide the guidance that I have given above.

Peter
 
Had a similar mail from Axminster today- They’re putting a new set of rulers in an order I have waiting for dispatch.

Very happy with their service - things go wrong occasionally, and it’s the way a company deals with an error that really sets the good ones apart.
 
I’m very happy to see a great resolution on this. Peter, you have an amazing mind. Thank you for your work and the grace with which you handle yourself.
 
I have just been told by email that the Mk2 system will be available for retail sale until next spring which seems rather vague.
 
casper said:
I have just been told by email that the Mk2 system will be available for retail sale until next spring which seems rather vague.

I suspect that bulk export to dealers will only come when Axminster can gear up to the high demand. They have sold out 2 or 3 times since the launch and despite this the demand for the original system remains high.

Peter
 
Hi Paul

You need to report this to Axminster. I cannot help you and they are not here on the FOG.

Peter
 
[member=67413]box185[/member]

I understand.

I have asked Axminster to sort this out.

Peter
 
Axminster sent me another set of replacement Parf sticks (my third pair now), which they said were checked for accuracy. Like box185's replacements, there was one "old-style" and one "new-style" ruler in the package. The old-style ruler has the logo embossed (imprinted) in the surface, while the new-style ruler has the logo raised on the surface.

New (raised logo) above, old (embossed logo) below:
View attachment 1

These are the spacings I measured, in mm:

Old-styleNew-style
89.9290.05
90.0189.99
89.9790.02
90.0289.98
89.9390.03
90.0389.99
89.9490.03
90.0289.97
89.9290.03
90.0689.94

According to my measurements, the new-style ruler has more consistent hole spacing than the old one.

When I stacked the on top of each other and connected them using the fixing pin at hole 0, and found that for some hole position, the longer drill guide would go through both sticks easily, for some, it went through but was a bit tight, and for some, it would not go through both.

View attachment 2

View attachment 3

I decided to calculate the overall positioning of of the holes, assuming that each hole is exactly 6.00mm in diameter, and that my measurements are accurate. (These assumptions may not be exactly true, but later on we'll see that they are still useful.) I then calculated the difference of the hole positions in the old and new ruler.

Old-styleNew-styleCumulative oldCumulative newDifference
89.9290.0595.9296.05-0.13
90.0189.99191.93192.04-0.11
89.9790.02287.9288.06-0.16
90.0289.98383.92384.04-0.12
89.9390.03479.85480.07-0.22
90.0389.99575.88576.06-0.18
89.9490.03671.82672.09-0.27
90.0289.97767.84768.06-0.22
89.9290.03863.76864.09-0.33
90.0689.94959.82960.03-0.21

The smallest difference was .11mm, and the largest was 0.33mm. I found that for the holes that were
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0470.JPG
    IMG_0470.JPG
    478.9 KB · Views: 969
  • IMG_0471.JPG
    IMG_0471.JPG
    331.5 KB · Views: 476
  • IMG_0472.JPG
    IMG_0472.JPG
    335.2 KB · Views: 530
Back
Top